The aftermath of last year's blockbuster Apple v. Samsung patent trial is playing out slowly but acrimoniously, with no signs of settlement on the horizon. There's been a steady drip of developments over the past year that have generally favored Samsung—most notably, US District Judge Lucy Koh's order that a retrial must be held on damages. That retrial could slash Apple's billion-dollar payday by up to $450 million.

Sunday night, Samsung lawyers filed an order just out from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that renders invalid one of Apple's key patents, No. 7,844,915, the so-called "pinch to zoom" patent. It's definitely a setback for Apple, which presented "pinch to zoom" at last year's trial as one of the innovations that was ripped off by a wide array of Samsung phones.

This is the second Apple patent in its case against Samsung to be called into question at the Patent Office. Apple's "rubber banding" patent was tentatively overturned in October—but Apple eventually prevailed in getting the key claims found patentable last month.

It will ultimately be up to US District Judge Lucy Koh to decide how seriously to take this new development. Reexams are essentially a separate—and typically slower—path of resolving patent disputes. Patent holders can appeal these cases for years, both with the examiner and with the Board of Patent Appeals. The patent is still enforceable while the reexam process moves forward.

The damages retrial is scheduled for November. Apple also has design patents and trademarks that were found infringed in the case, so those aren't subject to reexams.

Apple's "rubber banding" patent was tentatively overturned in October—but Apple eventually prevailed in getting the key claims found patentable last month.

This isn't exactly the case. From what I read, claim 19 was reworded and thus made much more precise. This is the only reason the patent was allowed to stand. Samsung argues that since they changed the claim their products no longer infringe on the patent due to the difference in bounce method. Apple argues to samsung that it's too bad, you are too late to appeal it nor does it really matter what the wording is.

Regardless of the outcome, Apple would want this patent back just to keep up the claim they invented this technology and the PR that comes with it.

*does a happy jig* Suck it Apple. One of the worst patents that should have never existed. EVER.

While a bad patent, there are thousands of others that are much more egregious than that.

No there aren't. There are thousands of others that are just as bad. But Pinch to Zoom is no better than Amazon's One-Click patent. They're all a priori bullshit patents that should never have been granted.

Apple's "rubber banding" patent was tentatively overturned in October—but Apple eventually prevailed in getting the key claims found patentable last month.

This isn't exactly the case. From what I read, claim 19 was reworded and thus made much more precise. This is the only reason the patent was allowed to stand. Samsung argues that since they changed the claim their products no longer infringe on the patent due to the difference in bounce method. Apple argues to samsung that it's too bad, you are too late to appeal it nor does it really matter what the wording is.

Yeah, the claims were apparently narrowed considerably.

At this point so much of the trail has been overturned that I wonder if they eventually have to redo it.

Sunday night, Samsung lawyers filed an order just out from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that renders invalid one of Apple's key patents, No. 7,844,915, the so-called "pinch to zoom" patent. It's definitely a setback for Apple, which presented "pinch to zoom" at last year's trial as one of the innovations that was ripped off by a wide array of Samsung phones.

The patent linked is not the one referred to. The patent linked is the one relating to the "rubber banding" effect when scrolling, titled "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations".

The patent referred to in the paragraph is No. 8,365,090, "Device, method, and graphical user interface for zooming out on a touch-screen display".

While I agree this was a patent that was pretty poor (maybe a trademark would have been more appropriate) this whole thing is such a fubar situation that its hard to tell who was the least bastiche in the deal. Seriously-if I can explain a patent before I read it (i.e. give me the one line synopsis and I can describe the body with significant accuracy), then it shouldn't be patentable-that's pretty much the definition of non-obvious.

Sunday night, Samsung lawyers filed an order just out from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that renders invalid one of Apple's key patents, No. 7,844,915, the so-called "pinch to zoom" patent. It's definitely a setback for Apple, which presented "pinch to zoom" at last year's trial as one of the innovations that was ripped off by a wide array of Samsung phones.

The patent linked is not the one referred to. The patent linked is the one relating to the "rubber banding" effect when scrolling, titled "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations".

The patent referred to in the paragraph is No. 8,365,090, "Device, method, and graphical user interface for zooming out on a touch-screen display".

Oddly enough, your patent you refer to is an extention/refile of their original patent (a practice I thoroughly detest and hate, where people like apple refile their patents with different claims to broaden their reach of how competitors have worked around them, then claim priority of the invention back in 2007). They didn't mention "pinch" but a finger movement. I noticed that one article mentioned that Google already worked around the patent by tracing the movement of two fingers and not just one, which is what the original patent described, perhaps due to CPU limitations.

And yet, as I take a look at the patents it refers too, I too am going to the rubberband patent, and I am getting lost in all their references to each other. Did they merge them? Which one is the one to watch out for (hint: apple uses both the old and new when suing over their search patent)

*does a happy jig* Suck it Apple. One of the worst patents that should have never existed. EVER.

While a bad patent, there are thousands of others that are much more egregious than that.

No there aren't. There are thousands of others that are just as bad. But Pinch to Zoom is no better than Amazon's One-Click patent. They're all a priori bullshit patents that should never have been granted.

at least these patents have specific systems and methodsI am talking about the patents that are patenting "sending voice over the internet" or the "shopping cart".those patents may be "obvious" but at least they have known scope and specific function.

*does a happy jig* Suck it Apple. One of the worst patents that should have never existed. EVER.

While a bad patent, there are thousands of others that are much more egregious than that.

So because there are worse patents, we shouldn't do anything about this one?

Because there are serial killers out there, the cops should not go after someone who has only killed one person?

Is that the thinking behind your statement?

whoa there cowboy, pull your reigns up there.Where, exactly, did I say that?I am pointing out the fact that throwing a huge "YAY THIS IS SO AWESOME" celebration isn't warranted.holy hell guy, way to completely add wayyyyy more meaning to my point than there actually was.

Prior art in previous patents. There is also plenty of it in other areas, like even the that openmoko phone.

It's just that everyone, including the USPTO thought it didn't exist until Steve Jobs showed it on stage with the iphone. I like to cite the world news anchor of CBS, who when reporting about Steve Jobs death, said apple invented the mp3 player.

Sunday night, Samsung lawyers filed an order just out from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that renders invalid one of Apple's key patents, No. 7,844,915, the so-called "pinch to zoom" patent. It's definitely a setback for Apple, which presented "pinch to zoom" at last year's trial as one of the innovations that was ripped off by a wide array of Samsung phones.

The patent linked is not the one referred to. The patent linked is the one relating to the "rubber banding" effect when scrolling, titled "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations".

The patent referred to in the paragraph is No. 8,365,090, "Device, method, and graphical user interface for zooming out on a touch-screen display".

Oddly enough, your patent you refer to is an extention/refile of their original patent (a practice I thoroughly detest and hate, where people like apple refile their patents with different claims to broaden their reach of how competitors have worked around them, then claim priority of the invention back in 2007). They didn't mention "pinch" but a finger movement. I noticed that one article mentioned that Google already worked around the patent by tracing the movement of two fingers and not just one, which is what the original patent described, perhaps due to CPU limitations.

And yet, as I take a look at the patents it refers too, I too am going to the rubberband patent, and I am getting lost in all their references to each other. Did they merge them? Which one is the one to watch out for (hint: apple uses both the old and new when suing over their search patent)

Yes because the Fraunhofer mp3 patents were totally obvious to anyone skilled in the art. /sarcasm

For a DSP geek? Perhaps. It's certainly harder target but not necessarily legitimate.

Would MP3 have been developed otherwise? Clearly. Academic types like PhD candidates and those trying to get tenure still need to publish. The research that is supposed to go on in Universities will continue without an Animal Farm style payday.

Patents are meant to solve a particular problem that occurred in the early industrial period that probably doesn't apply to software at all.

Wow... I feel like such a fanboy...Do people remember what phones looked like before the iPhone?Do people remember how phones used to work?

The pocket was protected by a two button press on the keyboard...It was always something like End Call and Star.Slide to unlock did not exist in a phone.

Most had a keyboard. None had full Rich graphical environments. None had smooth flowing transitions.

Things like pinching did NOT exist (in phones). Pinching only existed in one other devices that I'm aware of, the Surface (original) that never took off.

I guess you could say that Minority Report invented it...But what world do we live in when a company delivers a new experience complete with patents and cant keep others from copying it?Samsung didn't even make phones!Google didn't even make phones!Everything about the samsung android product is a copy with a few things added.

But like I said... Maybe I'm just a fanboy?

If the Surface did it...that's prior art. Doesn't matter if it "took off" or not. Samsung did make phones before this...millions of them. Last I checked, Google doesn't make phones unless you count Motorola at this point.

Reexams are essentially a separate—and typically slower—path of resolving patent disputes. Patent holders can appeal these cases for years, both with the examiner and with the Board of Patent Appeals.So there is hope for humanity?

Well, so long as you're a massive company with deep enough pockets to litigate every detail for years on end... :-\

Wow... I feel like such a fanboy...Do people remember what phones looked like before the iPhone?Do people remember how phones used to work?

The pocket was protected by a two button press on the keyboard...It was always something like End Call and Star.Slide to unlock did not exist in a phone.

Most had a keyboard. None had full Rich graphical environments. None had smooth flowing transitions.

Things like pinching did NOT exist (in phones). Pinching only existed in one other devices that I'm aware of, the Surface (original) that never took off.

I guess you could say that Minority Report invented it...But what world do we live in when a company delivers a new experience complete with patents and cant keep others from copying it?Samsung didn't even make phones!Google didn't even make phones!Everything about the samsung android product is a copy with a few things added.

But like I said... Maybe I'm just a fanboy?

If the Surface did it...that's prior art. Doesn't matter if it "took off" or not. Samsung did make phones before this...millions of them. Last I checked, Google doesn't make phones unless you count Motorola at this point.

Sure... But nobody had every scrolled with a swipe or pinched a webpage before.

And you can Patent a new application of an existing technology.So you can patent pinch to zoom, For maps, and For Web pages.I'll have to read the patent to see if that's how they applied it. Even if they patented pinch to zoom for the phone, that should be upheld!NOONE had pinch to zoom on a phone before.

People never used to think of their phones as computers before!It was unheard of to be able to remote desktop from a phone to a computer!It was unheard of to see the Full Web in a functional way on a smaller screen.

If dear 17-posts-so-far commenter, you are a corporate shill, then please stop.

Assuming you are not, and your 2-year old registration would indicate that you are not, then although the reach and changes in the market that Apple was able to achieve were and are extraordinary, that alone does not mean that to a person of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. someone who professionally understands this technology, this was not all obvious to implement.

In other words: Apple's execution of their business plan with this technology is unparalleled; that does not make the technology patent-worthy.

Sure... But nobody had every scrolled with a swipe or pinched a webpage before.

And you can Patent a new application of an existing technology.So you can patent pinch to zoom, For maps, and For Web pages.I'll have to read the patent to see if that's how they applied it. Even if they patented pinch to zoom for the phone, that should be upheld!NOONE had pinch to zoom on a phone before.

People never used to think of their phones as computers before!It was unheard of to be able to remote desktop from a phone to a computer!It was unheard of to see the Full Web in a functional way on a smaller screen.

Pinch to zoom on a touch screen device. Like the Surface you already presented as prior art. All of the other things they've done do NOTHING to help the validity of this patent. You can't patent an experience, or an overall feel of a device. So all the other "Apple revolutionized X market" in your comment is completely irrelevant to the patent you are trying to defend.

Yes because the Fraunhofer mp3 patents were totally obvious to anyone skilled in the art. /sarcasm

I am willing to bet that they are trivial to anyone with a math background. Which is a reason why math is not supposed to be patentable. On top of that software at its core is math anyway, so it doubly shouldn't be patented.

Would it not be better for cases like this to first find out if the patents are valid, then go to trail for damages.It would save a lot of time and money.

Some judges do exactly that, and it can save time and money. Problems arise when a patent holder argues, for example, that "commercial success" is an indicator of patentability. In other words, there was a "long felt need in the industry" and the fact that the patented invention was able to address that need shows how innovative it was. In determining commercial success, the parties will argue over what sales were, and what percentage of sales were driven by the patented feature, etc., which are the same things that go into a damages calculation. So, it may become more efficient to include the damages phase of the trial with the validity since those matters are being litigated anyway.

Also, reexams to the contrary, all patents, once examined and issued, are presumed valid, and the burden is on the accused infringer to prove otherwise.

At the end of the day; all new smartphones look and feel like iPhones now.Before 2007 the were like windows phone, palm and nokia.

It was a developing industry. Apple did an interesting thing on the usability front, but to trumpet them as the be-all and end-all of innovation in the mobile space is to deliberately ignore that they have done virtually nothing first, they just applied the work of others and put attention where others didn't and succeeded.

Quote:

Look, I loved my nokia, but it was NOT like an iPhone or android is now.

It wasn't, but it was there first.

Quote:

They all allow Apps to be downloaded now from an app store where the DRM is part of the store.They all take gestures.They all allow multitouch.They all allow full versions of the web in a webbrowser.They all dump you to a screen full of your apps (like nokia)They all have accelerometers compasses and gyroscopes. They all have HUGE screens with FEW buttons.

Isn't it nice when the new technologies (not invented by Apple) all hit around the same time?

Quote:

Apple changed the way we think about phones and they changed what we all expect from phones!

No it didn't. All they did was improve the user interface. If anything, they disappointed me by imposing the walled garden.

Quote:

None of this was inventive?

Possibly, but not Apple's. Apple went and patented trivialities like list bounces and screen pinching - patents that should not have been granted.

Apple changed the way we think about phones and they changed what we all expect from phones!None of this was inventive? Come on!

You can't speak for what "we" expected, only yourself. (Unless you have polling data that could be qualified as admissible in a court of law, or could be a court recognized expert in the field. Objective support for broad statements like the one you made would be good.)

And no, in many of our opinions, none of this was inventive in a legal sense, at least as expressed in this particular online community.

No, you come on. The difference between now and then is the invention of the large multitouch screen. Apple didn't invent that. Before that though, there were phones and pdas that had touch screens, had app stores, had full web browsers, and accelerometers, and gps and such. Apple was just the first to put all the features in one device, helped significantly by being the first to get access to the new touch screens.

At the end of the day; all new smartphones look and feel like iPhones now.

Look, I loved my nokia, but it was NOT like an iPhone or android is now. There is a reason microsoft, palm, Symbian and blackberry went back to the drawing boards after 2007.After their experience at their drawing boards, they came out with products that worked MORE like iPhones than their previous products. They all allow Apps to be downloaded now from an app store where the DRM is part of the store. They all take gestures.They all allow multitouch.They all allow full versions of the web in a webbrowser.They all dump you to a screen full of your apps (like nokia)They all have accelerometers compasses and gyroscopes. They all have HUGE screens with FEW buttons.

Or like LG Prada's. Or, maybe, just maybe, like cars, laptops, earlier model cell phones, guns, and dozens of other devices, the technology and function of the device conspires to make the most useful and practical design nearly the same for every manufacturer. Apple was one of the earlier makers, but they definitely weren't the first to do any of that.

They all allow Apps to be downloaded now from an app store where the DRM is part of the store. They all take gestures.They all allow multitouch.They all allow full versions of the web in a webbrowser.They all dump you to a screen full of your apps (like nokia)They all have accelerometers compasses and gyroscopes. They all have HUGE screens with FEW buttons.